This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Assessment of economic evaluation study – Voriconazole versus Caspofungin for the Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in Spain 1.1 The study examined the COST and not the EFFECT of the programmes in consideration. It was a COST MINIMISATION ANALYSIS. 1.2 There was a comparison drawn between the direct costs involved in the treatment of mycosis using voriconazole and caspofungin. 1.3 The economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the National Health System (hospital level), calculating only the direct healthcare costs, expressed in 2006 Euros. Other costs, such as direct nonhealthcare costs, intangible costs or indirect costs caused by days lost from work as a result of prolongation of hospital stay due to the disease, were not calculated. 2.1 The indirect cost parameter was omitted from the study. 2.2 A do nothing alternative was considered. 3.1 The efficacy and safety of both caspofungin (Cancidas®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Madrid, Spain) * and voriconazole (Vfend®, Pfizer, Alcobendas, Spain) were estimated from a systematic review of the...
View Full Document
- Spring '11
- Clinical trial, Indirect costs, Aspergillosis, Voriconazole, intangible costs